Political Opportunity Structure In The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

Political opportunity structure in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

The conflict that affects Palestine and in which the state of Israel settled presents a series of peculiarities. On the one hand, the Palestine colonizers expelled the native population;Two thirds of Palestinians who lived in the territory that in 1948 would become Israel, took possession of their land and assets, and hurt for a long time with segregationist legislation to those who stayed in what has been defined since then definedLike a Jewish state. On the other hand, the coexistence of two confronted communities has established a situation of permanent violence, highlighting the subsistence of one, which tries to obtain their own territory and international recognition from various methods. It is in this context of injustice when resistance;and subsequent response or repressive authority, makes its way, having the possibility of taking several paths.

Although in this case we are only going to focus on the two intifated, and, with which, on those that include violence as a practice of the denial of the other (and as a way of preventing all kinds of negotiation),This conflict opts for the route that gives way to the theory of C. Schmitt, who proposes antagonistic violence, war and the dialectic between the friend and enemy as premises. That is, very marked dissociative positions are established by articulating actors that defend their legitimacy in terms of 1) denial of the other, or 2) of collective violence (Tilly, 2007): activating and/or deactivating the mechanisms that compose it to move from theNon -violent interaction to the violent and vice versa.

To understand what was mentioned above as a hypothesis, we will use the theory of the political opportunity structure (EOP). Tarrow (1997) defines it as the set of dimensions of the political context that cause collective action;well promoting or deactivating it, focusing on when of said action;The latent situation that facilitates the appearance of new social movements. Although, for the subject at hand, we must emphasize that the EOP in the creation of the two intifated is different.

The first is based on the tension between Palestine and Israel, and, the second focuses on internal tension in Palestine between Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to achieve internal power.

In the last 30 years two intifated have occurred. The first;Known as the "War of the Piedras", it emerged in 1987 at the Yabalia refugee camp (Gaza) and ended in 1993, with the Oslo for Peace agreements. For its part, the second Intifada, which began in 2000 in response to the visit of the politician Ariel Sharón to the Arab Zone of Jerusalem, officially ended in 2005 with the victory of Israel leaving more than six thousand dead, mostly Palestinians.

Intiflated ones are understood as the conflict generated by a feeling of anger but which leads to incidents and sabotages. These were activated in natural scenarios of everyday life, such as concentrations, agitations or uprisings. The actors began to attack or attack the assets of others, they were little coordinated and sporadic, but if they extend they can trigger all kinds of resistance protests, causing great damage to all the actors that compose it. These rebellions have consisted of strikes, barricades and clashes with Israeli forces with molotov stones and cocktails.

In the first intifada, the EOP could be realized in a struggle between two different territories, Palestine and Israel. This voltage can be analyzed between the two of two sides of the same currency. Palestine as an agricultural country in development process that has not yet been industrialized and therefore continues to try to democratize and then be able to achieve capacity as a state. Israel, on the other hand, is a country born to the Kibutz, and that has achieved capacity through development and paramilitary force exercised by Ben Guiron.

At the same time, it should be noted that unstable alignment in elites and;Above all, in the statements of Movimistic businessman Arafat, he created the perfect opportunity for the creation of Hamas, very important actor since then.

In the second, on the other hand, the contest looms on Palestine with two important actors since they have different ideas for the liberation of Palestine. Hamas, who focuses more on achieving military power to start democratizing. Instead, the OP;that left behind the strategy that Hamas was following, focused on the contest with Israel in a more peaceful way. As Sharp (2003) explains, the PLO focuses on the use of non -violence and through a political challenge implements Palestine internal cooperation in order to self-govern, while trying to deny that source of power to Israel.

In sum, in the organizational variable we can highlight the change given by the Paramilitary Armed Group OP to political movement, while we can highlight the creation of Hamas in the same EOP, taking into account that the change of the first promoted the creation of the creation of the creation of thesecond. Without forgetting the discursive framework;Which has changed from the politicization of the conflict and especially from the first intifada, we can highlight the different speeches of the OP and Arafat towards a phase of the less violent conflict, at the same time that the discursive repertoire of Hamas can be analyzed. Along the same lines, polarization can also be seen, but a not so abrupt on the Israeli side: on the one hand, with the discourse of the Prime Minister which does not recognize the Palestinian people, reducing everything to a Schmittian antagonistic logic. And, on the other hand, the agonistic logic of the president who recognizes Palestine to create a confederation.

Bibliography

1. Kriesi, Hanspeter, et al. (1992). “New Social Movements and Political Opportunities in
2. Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 22 (2), pp. 219-244.
3. Tarrow, Sidney. (1997). The power in motion: social movements, action
4. Collective and politics. Madrid: Editorial Alliance.
5. Tilly, Charles (2007). Collective violence. Barcelona: do
6. Sharp, Gene (2003). From the dictatorship to democracy, a conceptual system for liberation. USA: The Albert Einstein institution.